| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Barnett Formula
3. Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks): What recent discussions she has had with Treasury Ministers about the operation of the Barnett formula. [150735]
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers about a range of matters. The Barnett formula continues to provide a fair deal for Scotland within the United Kingdom and we have no plans to change it.
Mr. Fallon: Now that education and health spending are at least 25 per cent. higher per capita in Scotland than in England, and as that difference is paid for through the formula mainly by taxpayers in England, would not it be reasonable to invite the Scottish Parliament to use its tax-raising powers to enable Scottish decisions on higher teachers' pay or free nursing care, which it is fully entitled to take, to be financed with enthusiasm and integrity by Scottish taxpayers?
Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the question. The spending allocations in Scotland were originally based on a needs assessment. The Barnett formula allocates the increases each year according to population, so they are updated annually as the population changes north and south of the border. I have been considering his constituency, which has an unemployment rate of 1.5 per cent. My constituency has an unemployment rate of 6.6 per cent.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Blame the MP!
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman says "Blame the MP"; I thought that he was going to say "Blame the Government". I suppose that it is the same thing.
Although the rate has been reduced by a third since Labour came to power, it is still 6.6 per cent., which is more than four times that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). All the other indicators there are better than those in my constituency, too, which suggests that Scotland still has needs that do not exist in his part of England. Some parts of England will be receiving higher per capita expenditure than Scotland, however, as they also have substantial needs.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill): Does my hon. Friend agree that those who seek to abolish the Barnett formula are doing Scotland a great disservice? Will he speculate on their motive for doing so?
Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that such people can be motivated by a desire for re-election in Scotland, which
has clearly been abandoned by the Conservatives. Sometimes, Opposition Members say that the decisions taken by the Scottish Executive, who have a finite budget, create preferential treatment north of the border. Devolution means that they decide their own priorities. If they choose to spend more on one area, it means that less will be spent on another area. However, that spending is in the context of the fastest increasing budget in living memory north and south of the border. By 2003, the Scottish Executive will have £3.4 billion extra to spend because of a Labour Government, and they will spend it according to the priorities decided in Scotland.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): Will the Minister concede that, year on year, the Barnett formula reduces the percentage of Government expenditure in Scotland? Despite that, the Government surplus of revenue from, against expenditure in, Scotland in the next couple of years will be approximately £7.7 billion, which should help to subsidise some Members and their constituents.
Mr. Foulkes: I find this a bit strange. The Tories from the leafy suburbs in the south-east claim that the settlement is too generous, while the nationalists whinge as usual and say that it is not generous enough. That suggests that it is about right.
It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. I am glad that we have fine weather for his day trip to London. I have here the Scottish National party's voting record in the House of Commons; it is appalling. There is one consolation: it is not the worst, simply the second worst after that of Sinn Fein.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Barnett formula will be the prime method of calculating spending in Scotland, and that he will oppose the statements of Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who said that the Tories could not guarantee maintaining spending in Scotland and that there were
- "several areas of spending the Tories would like to see cut"?
Mr. Foulkes: As I said earlier, the Barnett formula is fair; it does not squeeze, but continues to provide a fair expenditure allocation to Scotland, based on need. Not only the Barnett formula but the Labour Government's huge increases in expenditure across the board benefit Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine): Does not the Minister realise that spending increases in the past two years have been to make up for the massive cuts in the first two years of the Government's tenure? At the end of their term of office, the percentage of gross domestic product that is spent on public services will be less than that under the Conservatives. The Barnett formula determines the amount of money that is available for investing in public services in Scotland. When the Minister discusses it with Treasury Ministers, does he
appreciate that, in tomorrow's Budget, the Chancellor should put such investment before tax bribes for the election?
Mr. Foulkes: The Chancellor has put investment in public services at the top of the agenda. The Government have provided four times the increase in education expenditure that the Liberal Democrats requested. Whenever the election takes place, voting for the Liberal Democrats or the nationalists in Scotland will be one way of returning a Tory Government--
Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): My hon. Friend defeated a Tory.
Mr. Foulkes: Who can tell the difference between him and a Tory? A Tory Government would not be committed to increases in public spending.
Rail Franchise
5. Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South): If she will expedite the awarding of the Scottish rail franchise. [150737]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The current franchise agreement ends in March 2004. Public consultation on the priorities for rail services in Scotland ended on 28 February, and Scottish Executive Ministers will take account of that in the directions and guidance put to the Strategic Rail Authority for the Scottish passenger rail franchise.
Mr. Donohoe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, she will know that awarding the contract for the new franchise to ScotRail has been delayed. That affects its ability to place new rolling stock orders. Will she make further representations to facilitate the process and thus enable the Scottish travelling public to travel on trains that have seats for everyone?
Mrs. Liddell: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. The Scottish Executive have been anxious to concentrate on getting the process right rather than on speed. However, I will make sure that my hon. Friend's representations are made available to the Scottish Executive, and I am sure that they will take them into account.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland the need for that matter to be resolved is urgent? Recent developments of traffic problems around Aberdeen demonstrate that we need an upgrading of the service between Aberdeen and Inverness, and investment in a commuter service between Inverurie, Stonehaven and points further north and south. The sooner the matter can be resolved, the sooner we will be able to secure the investment that will deal with the traffic problems and congestion.
Mrs. Liddell: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I understand them. The problem is a consequence of many years of underinvestment in our
railway network, and the Scottish Executive will take that into account when they roll out their plans for the rail network in Scotland.ADVOCATE-GENERAL
The Advocate-General was asked--
Devolution
24. Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): If she will make a statement on the number and types of devolution issue cases that have been intimated to her. [150758]
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): As at the end of February, more than 1,200 devolution issues have been intimated to me. The vast majority have focused on the right to a fair trial, which is enshrined in article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Some of the matters raised include delay and the question of a trial within a reasonable time; the right to an independent and impartial tribunal; prejudicial pre-trial publicity; cases under the Road Traffic Acts concerning the presumption of innocence; and legal aid questions. Devolution issues concerning convention rights other than those in article 6 have also been raised.
Mr. Savidge: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that response. Will she tell the House which cases have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
The Advocate-General: So far, seven cases have been referred. They are Brown, the drink-driving case; Montgomery, the pre-trial publicity case; McIntosh, the case relating to the confiscation of criminal assets; McLean, the case involving fixed legal aid fees; Anderson, the mental health case; the temporary sheriffs case; and the district court challenges.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Will the Advocate-General tell us whether any case has been referred to her on the issue of devolution, particularly on the constitutionality of an electoral system that allows the Labour party, which came first in the elections to the Scottish Parliament, to share power with the Liberal Democrat party, which came a poor fourth?
The Advocate-General: Under the Scotland Act 1998, any member of the public who is litigating is entitled to raise a devolution issue if they can plead themselves into the Act. I have not noticed the Conservatives in Scotland making such a plea, but if they do, I will consider it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |